Witnesses are only 'credible' when their testimony aligns with the preferred presentation. Selective judgement only, then only if it sings the pre-programmed tune, then only can it be construed as the truth. That seems to be the goal.
Have you ever seen the Saturday Night Live bit with the chronic lair? Think talking heads on TV in support of the official story.
To address the was it known bit, on radar, if something is indeed being tracked, there is a thing called steady bearing, decreasing range, that is a collision course. According to testimony by Norman Mineta, a young man allegedly stated that something was 10 miles out, however, other than having people talk about it, there isn't any other data ( recorded RADAR info ... or? ) that would support this, and so its still up for grabs as to exactly what did happen.
OK thanks. My basic question: If it was known that the plane was 10 miles out, it must not have been at a low altitude? No one would have known that the plane was on a direct collision course with the Pentagon.
at the time the alleged airliner was 10 miles away from the PENTAGON, by its course, it was known to be headed for Washington D.C. and also, it was known that this aircraft didn't have a transponder signal, so for all anyone knew, it could be RUSSIAN bomber. also, its a given that it was already very well known that both WTC towers had been hit and "AMERICA is under attack" therefore, why was there not a super "RED ALERT" signal sent out to ALL of the military bases in this nation? according to spokespeople for our glorious military, there was much confusion that morning .... WHY? there are military procedures in place to mandate what should be done in specific instances. whats up with the confusion? something doesn't smell right here.
Uh huh, sure - you have not yet replied to a single fact that contradicts the official story inside this thread. When are you ever going to get around to accomplishing that monumental task- huh? You are supposed to be here to debate, remember? That means you walk through the door laying your facts on the table and arguing your case. Oh, wait a minute - that's right. You don't use the official 911 Commission Report as your source for facts about 911. And, why is that? Because, you know the 911 Omission Report is riddled with holes wide enough to fly a Boeing 757-200 through from wingtip to wingtip, don't you? You official storytellers have two F-15s out of Otis climbing UP to an altitude where Flight 175 no longer exists and you had nine (9) full minutes to correct the error but never did. Flight 175, is down at 200 AGL one minute before Otis scrambles. No corrective orders were ever given to Otis either BEFORE or AFTER the scramble was allegedly ordered. Can you explain that NONSENSE to me using the 911 Omission Report as your source - or any other source for that matter? You are scrambling F-15s UP to an altitude where you KNEW Flight 175 no longer existed because you were TRACKING the darn thing all the way to the ground and REPORTED that it had entered a "steep dive" from FL290 down to 200ft AGL well BEFORE you scrambled. Why the heck would you scramble UP when you already KNEW that the target was DOWN on the deck? What is WRONG with that picture in your tiny little mind? You official story types are so incredibly frustrating to deal with. Stop being so darn foolish. Stop being so willfully BLIND to the evidence. Pull the plugs from your ears and stop covering your eyes from the truth. These are the facts of the case before you. The Flight 175 FDR Flight Track TELLS YOU WHAT HAPPENED and it does NOT square with the scramble orders allegedly given to Otis - nor does it square with the actions of the pilots who eventually scrambled to New York that dreadful day. Wake up! You are the target of a PSYOP that is STILL going on to this VERY DAY. Get over it and get back in the game - if you ever were in the game to begin with.
You seem to think throwing a lot of nonsense out on this board,and hoping something sticks is 'debate'...Well I don't. And the fact that you quote yourself in your tagline,tells me all I need to know about you. Psyop my ass.
This thread and the evidence known to date says, yes. How else could Cheney's boy feed him in-bound telemetry on something that eventually struck the Pentagon. What it an airplane? No. If it was an aircraft, then such a weapon would leave behind its signature - that's what all weapons do - leave signatures. Where is the commercial heavy aircraft debris commensurate and consistent with that of a Boeing 757-200 at the Pentagon? It does not exist to anywhere near the degree expected from such a low angle of attack collision - near perfect 90-degrees to the face of the target. Where are the wings in relationship to the size of the original hole in the Pentagon before the roof collapsed? Where is the vertical stabilizer in relationship to the size of the original hole in the Pentagon before the roof collapsed? Where are the RB211-535s in relationship to the size of the original hole in the Pentagon before the roof collapsed? None of these major structural components and show any point of entry evidence before the roof collapses. There are no entry holes even remotely sufficient to account for their entry into the building. So, where did they go? National Geographic wants you to believe that the building magically absorbed them by violating not just the laws of physics but of common sense. That you can fit an object into a hole that does not exist, violates common sense - period. The Crash Site Geometry at the Pentagon and at Shanksville, is not commensurate with such aircraft being used as Missiles.
If you see nonsense then call it out and demonstrate WHY it is nonsensical. If you can't do that, then you are not even in the "debate" are you? The fact that you can't even put forth a solitary shred of rebuttal on the merits (because you are terrified to do so, no doubt) tells me all I need to know about you. Brain up and start offering argumentation that rebuts the facts alleged inside this thread, or you will forever be cast as an Official Storyteller who cannot think for himself and needs the governments help to do so. Now, brain up and offer some rebuttal on the merits. Explain the scramble orders coming out of Otis that directly contradict the FDR Flight Track Analysis of Flight 175 and its relative position in 3-dimensional space BEFORE Otis got off the ground. If you cannot offer an explanation for why that kind of contradiction is found inside the 911 Commission Report, then WHY on earth are you even here? Why are you so afraid of the 911 Commission Report? Why do those three word send chills down your spine? I'll tell you precisely why. It is because you KNOW full well that the 911 Commission Report is full of CRAP - that's why. You KNOW it is a lie - that's why you refuse to argue it here. I'm using the 911 Commission Report and the statements on record from Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy, himself. The Report and Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy's statements DO NOT corroborate each other and I have outlined the reasons why right here inside this thread. Are you FULLY aware of that fact? By definition that means either Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy is lying, or the 911 Commission Report is lying, or the FDR that allegedly came from Flight 175 was falsified (thus a lie). Either way, somebody is LYING. The only sane question that remains is WHO's telling the lie? Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy? The NTSB? Or, the authors of the 911 Omission Report? It is your call.
Still up for grabs? What - was the young man talking about the Domino's Pizza delivery man being 30 miles out - 20 miles out - 10 miles out? Where they that hungry that they began tracking the pizza delivery guy? Or, maybe they ordered Thai and got really concerned that their Pad Prik King would get too cold by the time they settled into the PEOC. Flights 11 and 175, were already burning in New York, so the young man could not have possibly been talking about those two. Flight 93, did not come inside the radius in miles as identified by Norman Mineta in his testimony. Norm Mineta, was clearly inside the PEOC before the Pentagon was struck. That leaves the alleged Flight 77. Of course, what struck the Pentagon was never a Boeing 757-200, as the crash site clearly tells anyone with eyes to see. So, clearly then, the young man was giving in-bound telemetry on some airborne vehicle on its way to the D.C. area. Furthermore, (and I should start a new thread for this topic) the angle of attack carried in by the object in the official video released by the Pentagon, does not match the angle of attack recorded by the alleged official Flight Data submitted by the NTSB to the FOIA request of Calum Douglas. I'll post the clear discrepancy here: Pentagon Camera #2: [video=youtube;yaCaldJGjmo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaCaldJGjmo[/video] NTSB Released Flight Data from Flight 77 (alleged): [video=youtube;DzR-q0ijbV0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0[/video] What's wrong with that picture? Take a closer look at the Altimeter just before impact. At less than 2,000 feet away horizontally, Flight 77 is showing itself to be several hundred feet above ground level. The Altimeter shows 180 feet and does not include the barometric correction from the Captain's last reported altitude well above FL180 (18,000 feet) which is where the barometer would have been set to 29.92, for all traffic operating under IFR flight rules at or above FL180 (18,000 feet). Making that correction places this aircraft somewhere closer to 370 to 490 feet AGL. The Pentagon stands 77 feet tall. How the heck does an aircraft flying at 370 to 490 feet AGL, strike a building on the ground at 77 ft AGL? Furthermore, even if you take the 180 feet AGL at face value, from a distance of approximately 2,000 feet at more than 462kts airspeed, the aircraft cannot get below 77 feet AGL with its nose virtually on the horizon. Note the nose down angle on the Attitude Indicator. It shows a near 7-degree nose down pitch angle. Yet, the object striking the Pentagon shows a flight path that is near perfectly horizontal to the ground. That's not possible and it is highly inconsistent with Flight 77's FDR as submitted by the NTSB to Calum Douglas. What amazes me about 911, is the willful blindness that those who carry the water for the official storytellers seem to have no problem arranging for themselves. You have a video issued by the Pentagon that directly contradicts data submitted by the NTSB. It is time for you to WAKE UP!
Unless somebody knew the Pentagon was the target. You can't have a distance measurement to an unknown point. So, the distance call-out by the young man implies foreknowledge about a specific fixed target. The question is: How did this young man know what nobody else in the entire world was supposed to know? The official storytellers can't seem to answer that glaring question. Somebody had to have a track on whatever struck the Pentagon. The young man was not talking about interceptors, Flight 11, Flight 175 or Flight 93 - none of them were in play in the D.C. area. That leaves the alleged Flight 77, or its Surrogate airborne attack vehicle. A possible Pentagon killer candidate? The fully autonomous JASSM ATG missile: [video=youtube;GfvAN2ck3Go]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfvAN2ck3Go[/video] Put an American Airlines livery on it, bring it in close to mach 1 without going over and neophytes on the ground will call it a "commercial airliner." More insightful people will call it a "small commuter type jet," or a "small jet," or a "small regional airline jet" - all descriptions that were given by some contemporaneous eyewitnesses at the Pentagon. They would never know the difference if surprised by it at close to mach speed - or something like it.
The young man could have been referring to "10 miles out" from central D.C. as an arbitrary point, the Pentagon & White House are not that far apart. (just to be "devils advocate...) Also, Just my $0.02 worth on the subject but it has never been shown that a commercial airliner could fly as fast & close to the ground as the "FLT77" aircraft was alleged to have done. Why hasn't Boeing weighed in on this?
You just struck a very painful and personal never for me. Your question is something I've been asking ever since September 11th, 2001. Go look at old footage of every single commercial airline crash in the modern era within the United States and you see the FAA, NTSB, Airlines and OEMs standing together doing parts identification and making declarative statements about what they found, what the recovered, the condition it was recovered and the confidence they had that it came from the flight in question. Yet, not once related to 911, have we ever seen an OEM stand with the NTSB or the FAA at a single Media Event - not once. This fact speaks volumes all by itself. It tells me that the OEMs don't want to be involved in the cover-up. It is not just Boeing. There are countless OEMs that could have stepped forth to present their findings to the public with the FAA/NTSB/Airlines/FBI etc. Yet, not one (1) of them has ever done that with respect to 911. That kind of deafening silence is staggering because not just one (1), not even two (2) or even three (3) - but four (4) commercial heavies went down on U.S. soil! To not have a single OEM step up to the plate as they always do in U.S. Commercial Aviation Accident history, is a massively staggering sign that something about that day is dreadfully wrong. As a direct result, I have decided that I will no longer fly anywhere on-board United, American or any Boeing airframe - ever again. I simply do not trust them. It has been a very personal decision but one that I will not change, until they all step forward together as they have in the past and explain to the American People what they found at each crash site, how they found it, what condition it was in when they found it and their confidence level that it came from an aircraft in their fleet or off their assembly line. My protest in this regard has been ongoing and very real since 2002. I am type rated in the 75, so this has hurt me dearly, both personally and professionally. I will not fly or be a passenger of any Boeing aircraft until they step forward and have an honest conversation with the American People. You really touched a nerve. A deep one.
I apologize Truly sorry about that. By all that is right, the American public should be boycotting airline travel, but as is obvious, that is really not happening.
They should boycott Untied, American for certain and find a way to travel by air without Boeing (sometimes very tough to do depending on departure point). I either fly myself to where I need to go, or I fly on Airbus, if I have to fly commercially. Personally, I am done with United, American and Boeing, until they get straight with the American People. What is needed, is a new unbiased investigation as though the matter were a criminal act to be decided in a criminal court. That would include criminal court rules of evidence and net positive affect the gathering of such evidence.
I have never written to Boeing, United or American, because the matter had such a high public profile. I did not do that with TWA Flight 800, ValueJet Flight 592, Pan American Flight 103, etc., etc., etc. They've always stepped up in front of a camera and microphone over the years and I had no doubt they would eventually do the same with Flights 175, 11, 93 and 77, but that never happened. Of course, the reasons why they refuse to step up are now glaringly obvious. Some of them I have clearly outlined inside this thread. Quite simply, they can't. They know full well that the debris found at the crash sites is highly inconsistent with their own aircraft! This should be one of the most glaring logical deductions made by anyone seriously investigating 911. When the OEMs don't even show up at the press conferences - you have a real problem on your hands. Every time you turned on your television at night for days and weeks on end after TWA Flight 800, you saw either the FAA or the NTSB standing tall with some kind of OEM representative of some type. The same was true with ValueJet and Pan American. Yet, we saw absolutely none of that for all of 911. That stinks to high heaven. That really, really smells bad. That's flat out not consistent with American Commercial Aviation Accident History - not by a country mile.
So you must therefore consider yourself complicit in your own conspiracy. "I knew something was wrong, but I did nothing." ~ Coward's Credo
Sites like letsroll.com (for example) have no credibility at all. There used to be a very dim-bulbed 'truther' on this board who proclaimed it was a "fountain of free-flowing truth". When your sources are places like that your own credibility is in question.
Is participating in discussions on&off-line "doing nothing"? Some actions are productive & some are not, the promoters of the OFFICIAL story would have us believe that its totally hopeless to dissent at all.
